<div dir="ltr">Let's look at this another way: what would be the point/benefit of displaying the *publish* date/time on a Static Page?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Edward Caissie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:edward.caissie@gmail.com" target="_blank">edward.caissie@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>My bad for not "noticing" it before now ... but that does not change the point that it should not be in the guidelines; or the point that there are most likely quite a few themes that should not be in the repository based solely on that guideline as well.<br>
<br></div>The point of something being static requires it to be fixed to a certain place or time thus having a timestamp is more likely to indicate the page to be static than to not have a timestamp. Having a guideline that dictates no fixed location, as in time, seems more counter-intuitive than useful.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br clear="all"><div>Edward Caissie<br>aka Cais.</div></font></span><div><div class="h5">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Amy Hendrix <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sabreuse@gmail.com" target="_blank">sabreuse@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
(this is becoming a bad habit!) My bad -- that wasn't the original<br>
version, just the oldest revision on the first page of history (D'OH!)<br>
but my point is that the no timestamps guideline has been around for<br>
several years now.<br>
<div><div><br>
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Amy Hendrix <<a href="mailto:sabreuse@gmail.com" target="_blank">sabreuse@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Sorry to follow up to my own email, but the first version of the Unit<br>
> Test codex page at<br>
> <a href="http://codex.wordpress.org/index.php?title=Theme_Unit_Test&oldid=91985" target="_blank">http://codex.wordpress.org/index.php?title=Theme_Unit_Test&oldid=91985</a><br>
> has "Make sure datestamps or timestamps are not visible." in 2010 --<br>
> as authored by Cais ;)<br>
><br>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Amy Hendrix <<a href="mailto:sabreuse@gmail.com" target="_blank">sabreuse@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> The guideline that Posts should display timestamps but Pages should<br>
>> not has been around for as long as I've been using the Theme Unit Test<br>
>> -- I completely agree that stale information on posts is always an<br>
>> issue, but IME the norm for just about all the users I deal with is<br>
>> that static pages should be seen as static, not time-dependent.<br>
>><br>
>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Emil Uzelac <<a href="mailto:emil@uzelac.me" target="_blank">emil@uzelac.me</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> I did not have time to check latest version yet, however I do agree<br>
>>> that timestamp should be displayed and not dictated if that is the case.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Edward Caissie <<a href="mailto:edward.caissie@gmail.com" target="_blank">edward.caissie@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I was just reviewing the latest Theme Unit Test data (mostly because I<br>
>>>> cannot seem to get the entire data set to import into my local test<br>
>>>> environment) and noticed "date/time stamp should not be displayed" ...<br>
>>>> perhaps I missed some extensive discussion but where did this guideline come<br>
>>>> from?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> This is the single most common complaint about information found on<br>
>>>> WordPress installations that I hear, the reader generally has no idea if the<br>
>>>> information is current or stale ... and more often than not those search<br>
>>>> results that appear to rank highest tend also to be the ones that are<br>
>>>> outdated.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I can see the category/tag meta data not being displayed (mostly due to it<br>
>>>> not being available in a default installation) but to not show the timestamp<br>
>>>> by reason of it being a guideline, that simply does not make sense.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> By design? Yes. By theme author prerogative? Yes. Dictated by the WPTRT?<br>
>>>> NO.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Edward Caissie<br>
>>>> aka Cais.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
>>>> <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
>>><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>